Tag Archives: adult education

Funded by the Higher Education Coordinating Board and under the management of The Education Institute at Texas State University, the Texas Developmental Education Professional Community Online (TX DEPCO) is proud to release to the public Promising Practices in Developmental Education.

This scholarly monograph is a selection from the TX DEPCO featured practitioners, who expanded their promising practices in terms of content and scholarly rigor for peer review. The printed version of Promising Practices debuted at CASP 2017 in Galveston this past October, but the archived version is available for free from the TEI website or here for immediate download: Promising Practices_TX DEPCO Monograph_2017.

Thank you again for all of the authors and readers involved in the TX DEPCO’s publishing cycle.

Michael C. McConnell is the editor of the Texas Developmental Education Professional Community Online (TX DEPCO) blog and monograph, the editor of the Journal of College Academic Support Programs (J-CASP), and a doctoral student in developmental education at Texas State University.

Quality teaching garners notable attention, especially the difference such makes in the success of students who are unprepared for credit-bearing post-secondary courses—such as students who are in developmental education (DE) courses—flourishing throughout classrooms due to teachers staying abreast of best practices (Gaal, 2014; Smith, 2010). Effective professional development (PD) opportunities contribute to practitioners addressing these students’ basic cognitive needs as well as non-cognitive needs. The facilitation of professional-learning-community engagement for practitioners—who, likewise, might be underprepared pedagogically to interface with, mentor, and instruct students challenged by college-level work—could help said practitioners to guide or even catapult their students toward academic, career, and financial success; and an improved quality of life (Bailey, 2009; Capt, 2011).

PD that emphasizes quality teaching practices imperative to student success, academic-transfer, matriculation, and career-placement—as well as flexible and accessible practitioner professionalization opportunities—have served as goals for the Texas Developmental Education Professional Community Online (TX DEPCO) as an avenue for practitioners to feature professional insights for the benefit and growth of likeminded colleagues. The TX DEPCO has extended from the Texas Success Initiative Professional Development (TSI PD) Program, perpetuated and managed by The Education Institute at Texas State University and funded by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. The TX DEPCO blog arose from the following TSI PD Program request-for-proposals verbiage: “Trainings that promote and reinforce promising practice research and strategies must be made available to administrators, full- and adjunct faculty, advisors, tutors, and lab personnel whose focus is the increased attainment of underprepared learners.” The TX DEPCO has sustained with the goal of disseminating promising practices from DE practitioners in and beyond Texas whose insights and observations suggest and relate to the context of DE, college-readiness, and post-secondary success.

The TX DEPCO blog’s grant-funded publishing cycle has culminated into a peer-reviewed monograph of select expanded blog articles, officially released in print form at the 2017 College Academic Support Programs (CASP) conference and archived in PDF form thereafter. Everyone involved has helped build the momentum for further publishing solutions to exist for DE in Texas, such as the Journal of College Academic Support Programs (J-CASP), sponsored and funded by the Texas Chapter of the College Reading and Learning Association (TxCRLA), the Texas Association for Developmental Education (TADE), and the Graduate Program in Developmental Education at Texas State University. The J-CASP continues the TX DEPCO’s publishing momentum by featuring and disseminating both peer-reviewed scholarly articles and non-peer-reviewed, practitioner-based promising practices.

As evidenced through the TX DEPCO blog analytics, provided by WordPress, viewers from institutions of higher education (IHE) throughout Texas and the nation have accessed the site. Some users have accessed the site—resources such as the conference schedules, bibliography of scholarly articles, links page, online PD modules provided through the TSI PD Program, and promising-practices practitioner features—from mobile devices in places where quality PD might not be available in-person without a discouraging, non-flexible, and/or inaccessible commute.

The authors featured in the 25 published TX DEPCO articles over the past two years—from the first featured author in March 2016 to present—represent a myriad of reflective promising practices designed by DE practitioners for DE practitioners. While the stipulations have been somewhat slim and digestible—with a 300-500-word count with somewhat minimal scholarly citation: 1-3 or more reputable references—the idea and format of the promising practices might serve as a stepping-stone toward further critical examination.

If the authors featured in this publishing venture have or feel as if they have further professionalized due to these contributions to the DE field—whether through an increased sense of confidence, or tangible professional opportunities—or if practitioner accessibility to these promising practices has influenced positive and productive student outcomes, then such are goals underscoring the TX DEPCO. These are desirable outcomes that can transform promising practices into publishing solutions.

References

Bailey, T. (2009). Challenge and opportunity: Rethinking the role and function of developmental education in community college. New Directions for Community Colleges, 145, 11-30.

Gaal, J. S. (2014). Making the case for structured professional development: Will it positively impact student outcomes at the post-secondary level? International Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 22(2), 93-103.

“If you see a student who finds it as hard as iron to study, it is because his studies are without system.” ~ Talmud, Ta’anit

In Part 1 of our tribute to Dr. Claire Ellen Weinstein, we discussed her pioneering work on learning frameworks courses (Hodges & Acee, 2017). In Part 2, we examine Weinstein’s contributions to the development of strategic learning assessments.

Weinstein, senior author of the Learning and Study Strategies Inventory (LASSI), assesses students’ use of learning strategies related to developing knowledge and skills, generating and sustaining motivation, and intentionally self-regulating thoughts, feelings, and behaviors to reach learning goals. Weinstein’s groundbreaking dissertation research on cognitive learning strategies (Weinstein, 1975), and her subsequent work with the U.S. Army and Department of Defense (Weinstein, 1978), helped to show that students’ could be taught to intentionally use learning strategies, and that learning strategies instruction could help students to create more meaningful and retrievable memories about the information they are trying to learn. This line of research led to the development of Weinstein’s Model of Strategic Learning (MSL; see Weinstein & Acee, 2013), which serves as the theoretical foundation of the LASSI.

The MSL highlights many of the factors that research has shown to be causally related to students’ academic success and amendable to change through educational intervention. The MSL organizes these factors under three major components: skill (knowing what to do and how to do it), will (wanting to do it), and self-regulation (actively monitoring and managing the learning process). The MSL emphasizes that students can intentionally use learning strategies related to their skill, will, and self-regulation to increase their chances of success in college and other postsecondary settings. The MSL also includes a fourth component, the academic environment. Although the academic environment is typically not under students’ direct control, it is important for them to develop knowledge about the academic environment (e.g., learning about available resources on campus and their teachers’ expectations) so they can be more strategic.

The LASSI measures students’ use of learning strategies related to their skill, will, and self-regulation, and it is intended for use with students in postsecondary educational and training environments (although other versions of the LASSI have been developed for use with students in high school and online learning environments). The LASSI is widely used across the United States and around the globe by over 3,000 institutions and is published in over 30 languages. The LASSI 3rd Edition has 10 scales and 60 items, 6 items per scale (Weinstein, Acee, & Palmer, 2016a). The LASSI scales include the following: Anxiety, Attitude, Concentration, Information Processing, Motivation, Selecting Main Ideas, Self-Testing, Test Strategies, Time Management, and Using Academic Resources (see Appendix for scale descriptions and example items). The LASSI 3rd Edition Manual (Weinstein, Palmer, & Acee, 2016b) provides information about the extensive development work that helped to establish the reliability and validity of the LASSI, and the procedures used to construct national norms.

Weinstein published the first edition of the LASSI in 1987 to help address increasing enrollments of students in postsecondary educational settings who were underprepared or at-risk of low performance. At that time, there were no strategic learning assessments that measured cognitive, metacognitive, motivation, and affective learning strategies. Weinstein needed such a measurement tool in order to provide students with feedback about their use of learning strategies and to measure their growth over time in response to strategic learning interventions, such as learning frameworks courses. Accordingly, the LASSI can be used to provide informative feedback to students, practitioners, and researchers about (a) students’ baseline status as a strategic learner, (b) which areas related to strategic learning to address in instruction for individual students and the class, or cohort, as a whole, (c) how students’ use of learning strategies changes over time, and (d) the effectiveness of interventions for students.

Dr. Claire Ellen Weinstein’s significant contributions to learning strategies research, learning frameworks courses, and strategic learning assessments helped to shape research, policy, and practice in many disciplines, but especially in postsecondary developmental education and learning assistance. Her lasting legacy of student-centered support lives on through the work of her students and colleagues.

Authors

Taylor Acee, Ph.D.

Dr. Taylor W. Acee is Associate Professor in the Graduate Program in Developmental Education in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction at Texas State University. He earned his Ph.D. and M.A. in educational psychology at The University of Texas and his B.S. in psychology at the University of Pittsburgh. His program of research is focused on cognitive, metacognitive, motivational, and affective factors that contribute to and detract from student success in postsecondary education. In his research, Dr. Acee targets variables that are causative, account for a meaningful amount of the variation in student success, and are amendable to change through educational intervention. He is internationally known for his collaborative work on personal relevance interventions, academic boredom, and strategic learning assessments and interventions. His research activities have resulted in over 30 refereed publications, 5 funded research grants totaling over $800,000, and various other scholarly activities.

Russ Hodges, Ed.D.

Dr. Russ Hodges is Associate Professor in the Graduate Program in Developmental Education in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction at Texas State University. He earned his Ed.D. in developmental education from Grambling State University and his M.Ed. from University of Louisiana in Monroe. Dr. Hodges’ research focuses on postsecondary student success, postsecondary student success courses, interventions for students diagnosed with AD/HD, and demographic changes in higher education. The learning framework model that he co-developed serves as a curriculum model for many postsecondary learning framework courses throughout Texas and the nation. Dr. Hodges has held state and national leadership positions including president of the College Reading and Learning Association (CRLA) and chair of the Council of Learning Assistance and Developmental Education Associations (CLADEA). He is an active scholar, having published three books, many journal articles, book chapters, and conference papers along with four research grants totaling just over 1 million dollars. He is also a frequent invited speaker for conferences for postsecondary faculty and staff development. Dr. Hodges has received many awards, including the Lifetime Achievement Award from the College Academic Support Programs conference, and outstanding service awards from both CRLA and the National Association for Developmental Education (NADE). In 2009, Dr. Hodges was named National Fellow for CLADEA—his field’s most prestigious honor.

Jonah Mutua is a Ph.D. Candidate in the Developmental Education program at Texas State University with a specialization in developmental math. He earned his M.S. from the University of Texas at Dallas and taught mathematics for Dallas Community Colleges (2011-2012) and Huston-Tillotson University in Austin (2012-present). His research interests involve finding better and practical ways to teach fractions and quadratic equations to college algebra students.

Introduction

Students enrolled in developmental mathematic courses experience various challenges in learning mathematics in general, and, in particular, they struggle in solving fractions problems. The American National Mathematics Advisory report (2008) states that “difficulty with the learning of fractions is pervasive and is a major obstacle to further progress in mathematics and other domains dependent on mathematics, including algebra” (p. 28).

Seigler and Pyke (2012) state that some of the properties of positive whole numbers arithmetic operations–which are taught before fractions are introduced to students–are not transferable in solving fraction problems, which is a major source of confusion among students. For example, positive whole numbers never increase with division, never decrease with multiplication, and they have unique successors. None of these properties are applicable when solving fraction problems. Students often find it difficult to learn and apply new properties required to handle fractions. Instead, they apply positive whole number properties in dealing with fractions and vice versa (Ni & Zhuo, 2005; Vamvakoussi & Vosniadou, 2010).

Another hurdle witnessed among children and adults as they struggle to master fraction concepts and procedures is the realization that the numerator and denominator should be handled together as a single unit and not as two separate and unrelated whole numbers. A study found that “students process the natural number parts of the fractions separately” (Kallai & Tzelgov, 2012). For example, when students solve this problem 2/3 + 4/5 , they often add 2+4=6 and 3+5=8, and they obtain 6/8 (which is wrong) as their final answer. According to Siegler & Lortie-Forgues (2015), there is a positive and significant relation between students’ ability to accurately place a fraction or decimal on the number line and their general arithmetic ability.

Theoretical Framework

Procedural and conceptual knowledge theories guided this study. According to Lin (2010), procedural knowledge can be defined as the necessary steps required to solve problems. The use of procedures helps students to solve fractions without necessarily understanding the concepts behind the procedures. Siegler & Lortie-Forgues (2015) found that procedures are easy to memorize and apply, but they are not as flexible as conceptual understanding.

Fazioand, Lisa & Siegler (2011) defined conceptual knowledge as knowing why–showing understanding and the ability to sequentially explain why rules or procedures applied in solving fractions result to correct solutions. Conceptual knowledge can be generalized to a class of problems and is not tied to a specific problem, (Fazioand, Lisa, & Siegler, 2011).

Research Questions

What are the common errors committed by developmental mathematics students when solving fractions?

Which fractions concepts do developmental mathematics students struggling with the most?

Importance of the study

Learning fractions has remained a challenging domain for students in developmental mathematics. This study seek to identify specific area in which students struggle while solving fractions. The study findings can be used to inform lesson planning so that “problematic” can be allotted more emphasis in terms of time and resources.

Research Method

Participant and Procedures

Three students were identified for this study based on the averages of their pretest and examination one scores, willingness to participate in the study and their availability. Benson is struggling with the basics of solving fractions. His pretest score was below 50%. Mary is an average student compared with students Benson and Loice. Her pretest score was between 50-60 %. Loice is the best of the three students in the study. His pretest score was 65-75 %. Each student solve three problems. All students in the study are freshmen, and they had never enrolled in this course before. This requirement was necessary to ensure a fair comparison among students at the end of the study.

Research Findings

QUESTION 1: Which is greater: 5/12 or 9/16?

Benson: He converted both fractions into decimal and then compared the two before choosing is final answer. Benson was able to solve this problem and explain his solution logically.

Mary: She compared 5 with 9; 9 was greater, then she compared 12 with 16; 16 was greater. Therefore, 9/16 was greater than. Mary got the correct answer, but her explanation was wrong.

Loice: She cited her previous instructor: “fractions are the reverse, the bigger the denominator, the smaller the fraction.” She compared 12 with 16 and decided that 5/12 was greater than 9/16 because 12 is smaller than 16. Loice’s answer was wrong.

QUESTION 2: Solve x+ 1/6 = 5/8.

Benson: He isolated x by subtracting on both fractions. Benson converted the fractions on the right side into decimal numbers, and then he subtracted 0.167 from 0.625 to get his answer (0.458). Benson struggled in converting his final answer (0.458) into a fraction, but he did great work.

Mary: She isolated x by subtracting on both fractions. Mary calculated the Least Common Multiple (LCM) of 6 and 8, then performed the subtraction on the fractions. Why find LCM? “We find the LCM because I thought we needed to have it, but I don’t know why.”

Loice: She isolated x by subtracting 1/6 on both fractions. Mary calculated the Least Common Multiple (LCM) of 6 and 8, then performed the subtraction on the fractions. Why find LCM? “We find LCM because you can’t solve a problem without the denominators being the same. It’s like comparing apples to apples.”

Benson: He was not able to proceed beyond changing the mixed fractions into improper fractions. “I have to stop because I do not know. I have forgotten how to divide mixed numbers.”

Mary: She converted the mixed fractions into improper fractions she verbalized this acronym “keep change flip, (KCF),” which meant keeping the first fraction unchanged, change the division sign to multiplication, and find the reciprocal of the second fraction. Why do we find the reciprocal of the right side fraction? “I do the KCF because it’s what I was taught; it’s the rule when you divide fractions.”

Loice: She identified fractions which were divisible by a common factor. Loice simplified the fractions and she obtained her answer. She used fewer steps.Why do we find the reciprocal of the right side fraction? “I’m not sure why we get the reciprocal because I’ve just always done it this way.”

Conclusions & Discussion

This study found that participants were struggling with both the procedural methods and conceptual understanding of solving fractions. Participants committed errors in multiplying and simplifying fractions. This study found that students’ procedural skills in solving fractions were better than their conceptual skills. Participants fared relatively well in addition and subtraction of fractions problems, but experienced challenges in dividing and comparing the magnitudes of two or more fractions. Participants who were not proficient with fraction concepts were unable to solve problems when they could not recall the associated acronym or rules. For example, students who could not recall how to find the least common multiple (LCM) of two fractions failed to answer question one. Division of fractions posed a major challenge to almost all participants. Although students tried to apply division of whole numbers rules to solve division of fractions, problems most of the rules were not applicable. The use of acronyms helped some students while others could not go beyond the first step. For example, students knew they were supposed to find the reciprocal of one of the fractions when dividing two fractions, but they were not certain whether to find the reciprocal of the left or right side fraction. There was a strong relationship between students’ abilities in explaining the necessary steps required in solving a problem and obtaining the correct answer.

References

Bettinger, E., & Long, B. T. (2005). Remediation at the community college: Student participation and outcomes. New Directions for Community Colleges, 129, 17-26.

Vamvakoussi, X., & Vosniadou, S. (2010). How many decimals are there between two fractions? Aspects of secondary school students’ understanding of rational numbers and their notation. Cognition and Instruction, 28(2), 181e209. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1080/07370001003676603.

Amber Sarker is beginning her third year of doctoral coursework with Texas State University, pursuing a PhD in Developmental Education with a focus on literacy. Amber has worked in a variety of educational settings, including elementary school, undergraduate courses, online environments, museum programming, and teaching adult second language learners. She has been a member of The Education Institute for two years, which has provided opportunities to co-create professional development, revise curriculum standards, and co-author grant proposals. Amber’s research interests are campus climate, postsecondary literacies, solidarity with students, and educational allyship with LGBTQ+ populations.

Carolyn Caudle is pursuing a Master’s degree in Developmental Education with a focus in literacy from Texas State University. Carolyn began her career teaching kindergarten and fell in love with literacy education after watching children swell with pride when reading their first word. After taking a few years off work while her children were young, Carolyn decided to go back to college and shift her focus to literacy at the post secondary level. She has special interest in improving students’ self-efficacy and boosting confidence within reading and writing.

Integrated Reading and Writing (IRW) has become an increasingly popular option for Developmental Education literacy courses. While reading and writing should continuously be the focus of each assignment and text (Holschuh & Paulson, 2013), embracing students’ digital literacies is an additional relevant and needed component of IRW instruction. The need for instructors to acknowledge and build on students’ digital skills is a result of academia’s shift from students being assigned static texts to complex hybrid texts (Lea and Jones, 2011). Moreover, multimodal meaning making, or comprehending a message using a variety of modes, occurs in a variety of cultural practices, and as a result, emphasizing this in the IRW classroom would benefit students greatly (Cope & Kalantzis, 2009). In order to provide context for this aforementioned research, this article briefly describes how an IRW course can use Adobe Spark to showcase connections students make in their personal lives in comparison to a novel read in class.

Cope and Kalantzis (2009) stated that embracing multiliteracies allows students to not simply restate ideas, but become “transformers of meaning” (p. 115). The ability of students to transform meaning using digital literacies is the central focus of the IRW lesson we are proposing. Our suggested assigned novel for an IRW course is Love and First Sight by Josh Sundquist. This novel is about a high school student, Will, who has been attending schools for the visually impaired his entire academic career, but decides to transfer to a mainstream high school. The text details his struggles and triumphs in this new environment. After reading the novel, students would identify a time in their own life when they were challenged with an unfamiliar environment and were required to navigate using a new literacy. They would then be asked to chronicle their own “fish out of water” experience using the free application Adobe Spark. Using this digital program, students could share their story using images, sound, and text to create a professional multimodal presentation.

College students are adept at navigating multimodal texts and resources. Unfortunately, this integration of technology often does not transfer to the classroom. To further prepare our students, embracing multimodal technology and making it the cornerstone of our instruction is paramount (Yu, 2014). Our suggested Adobe Spark storytelling project stresses the importance of New Literacies in an IRW course and suggests a method utilizing visual and auditory modes that can be used to augment instruction.

Cope and Kalantzis (2009) explained, “Experiencing the known involves reflecting on our own experiences, interests, perspectives, familiar forms of expression and ways of representing the world in one’s own understanding” (p. 125). By using Adobe Spark to connect a text to their own lives, students are able to digitally represent their world to their peers. The intersection of students’ experiences and the experiences of characters allows for an opportunity to understand varied perspectives and representations of ideas. Additionally, using Adobe Spark allows students to pre-record their presentation, allowing for a chance to revise the message intended for the viewer.

By creating experiences where students can use digital literacies to convey information, educators provide opportunities for students to “critique, resist, challenge, and change discourses” (Leander & Bolt, 2012, p. 33). Moreover, by using multimodal presentations, students are able to interact and communicate with peers in an engaging way (Jewitt, 2014). In addition, using a platform such as Adobe Spark allows students to interact with an engaging tool in order to connect the meaning made from the text to a larger audience. Implementing varied uses of technology in an IRW course allows students to better understand the intersection of discourses and digital literacies.

Jessica Slentz Reynolds is a third-year doctoral student in developmental education with a focus on developmental literacy at Texas State University. She earned a M.A. in English from Texas A&M University—Corpus Christi, where she also taught Composition and Developmental Writing as an adjunct instructor. She has been a Writing Consultant for the CASA Writing Center since 2011 and continues to tutor students online. Her research interests involve postsecondary literacies, integrated reading and writing, diversity in developmental education classrooms, and writing centers.

Last fall, I was inspired by The Education Institute’s (TEI) Self-Change Power Project to integrate contextualization into my Integrated Reading and Writing (IRW) course. Contextualization, in short, is the teaching of basic skills within a disciplinary topic (Perin, 2011). According to Perin (2011), contextualization can increase students’ intrinsic motivation and level of engagement in the classroom because it allows the subject to be deemed useful and interesting to learners. After reading Perin, I was reminded of the seminal work on IRW by Bartholomae and Petrosky (1986) where they argued that IRW courses should not be a study skills course consisting of workbooks and diagramming sentences, but IRW should help students acquire the necessary literacies to be successful in both academic and workplace discourses.

After making the connection between Perin’s (2011) work on contextualization and Bartholomae and Petrosky’s (1986) theory on IRW, I decided to modify the Self-Change Power Project to help students achieve the learning objectives for the expository unit of the semester: the Discourse Community Analysis (DCA). It is common for IRW instructors to assign an expository unit centered around the students’ future careers; however, I like to provide an opportunity for students to familiarize themselves with their future careers in a way that transcends a basic description of their potential professions. Since IRW is a reading and writing course, I use the expository unit to help students understand the various literacies in their chosen fields of study. The students complete a 6-week DCA project, where they not only research the many facets of communication within their potential careers, but they also observe and participate within these communities. The students must present—through either traditional essay format or by a formal presentation to the class—the goals, types of communication, language, membership, and the significance of literacy within their selected communities (Wardle & Downs, 2011).

These questions guided the expository unit to make IRW “worth it:”

Does assigning a DCA on students’ future careers lead to students having a stronger understanding of academic and workplace literacies?

Does implementing a comprehensive project that focuses on students’ individual goals increase motivation for students to complete the IRW course?

The following is a brief timeline of activities leading up to the final product for the DCA project. These components are a direct reflection of the Self-Change Power Project guidelines.

Students brainstorm and research types of communication, language, behaviors, and various literacies of their future careers.

Students decide what types of communication, language, behaviors, and various literacies of their future careers they want to observe, participate in, and monitor for 4-5 weeks.

Students participate in their selected communities and keep a journal about their experiences. They are prompted to write about what they observed, how they participated within the community, and how literacy is an integral aspect of their community.

In the last week of the unit, students showcase through writing, class discussion, and photographic evidence their processes and experiences participating in their chosen discourse communities.

Students submit their completed DCA project for a grade via essay or in-class presentation.

This DCA project aligns with what Goen and Gillotte-Tropp (2003) referred to as the six principles of an IRW program: integration, time, development, academic membership, sophistication, and purposeful communication. Based on feedback from two IRW sections, I received an overwhelming amount of positive responses from students who completed this project. Students stated that the project helped them decide if their selected major was the right path for them; the act of observing, understanding, and researching their communities forced students to use a variety of skills and resources they had not yet used in college; and, finally, students reported that it made them see the benefits to taking an IRW course.

Jonah Mutua is a Ph.D. Candidate in the Developmental Education program at Texas State University with a specialization in developmental math. He earned his M.S. from the University of Texas at Dallas. Jonah taught mathematics at Dallas Community College 2011-2012 and Huston-Tillotson University in Austin from 2012 to present. His research interests involve finding better and practical ways to teach fractions and quadratic equations to college algebra students.

This study attempted to examine if there is any relationship between students’ attitudes towards mathematics and their midterm scores in mathematics. Students’ attitude affects how they overcome academic challenges and their ability to adopt to changes (Bramlett and Herron, 2009). For example, students with a negative attitude tend to give up easily. On the contrary, students with a positive attitude are self-motivated and attempt numerous problems to improve on their speed and/or accuracy in solving mathematical problems. A positive attitude is a catalyst, which inspires students to achieve their goals (Ma & Kishor, 1997).

Theoretical Framework

The Operant Conditioning Learning theory guided this study. According to Bramlett and Herron (2009), the Operant Conditioning Learning theory explains that students’ behavior (attitude) is modified by positive or negative reinforcing. Bramlett and Herron found that when students interact with “role models” who are pursuing a major in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) on regular basis (weekly or monthly), they appreciate mathematics more, devote additional efforts in understanding concepts, and tend to complete their homework on time regularly. The interactions can occur in an informal setting, for example, in a mathematics learning center or in a formal setting like a classroom. Research questions: 1.What is the relationship between students’ attitude towards mathematics and their midterm scores in mathematics. 2. Is there any difference between male and female students’ performance?

Participants

Participants were recruited from a Historically Black University in central Texas. A total of 65 students participated in the study, 34 (52.3%) were male and 31 (47.7%) were female. All participants were freshmen enrolled in developmental mathematics courses. The average age of freshmen students at this institution is 18.5 years old. Students’ participation in the study was voluntary.

Discussion and Conclusion

The purpose of the study was to examine if there is any relationship between students’ attitude towards mathematics and their midterm scores in mathematics. The study found that students’ confidence in doing mathematics was a necessary attribute for students’ performance in midterm examinations. This conclusion is in agreement with previous studies on attitude towards mathematics and sciences (Bramlett & Herron, 2009; Tapia & Marsh, 2004; Ma & Kishor, 1997). Students’ ability to value mathematics was the next highest attribute required by a student to excel in midterm mathematics test. However, student’s gender had p > 0.05 implying that gender was not a significant factor in determining students’ score on the midterm test.

“Much have I learned from my teachers, more from my colleagues, but most from my students.” ~Talmud, Ta’anit 7b

Dr. Claire Ellen Weinstein was Professor Emeritus at the University of Texas at Austin. Dr. Weinstein is renowned for groundbreaking research on learning strategies, her Model of Strategic Learning, and as senior author of the Learning and Study Strategies Inventory. Dr. Weinstein’s research and practice in strategic learning has helped to define strategic learning courses, curriculum, and instruction across the U.S. and abroad, and especially in Texas; her legacy lives on in her many students and her students’ students. Of particular interest for this tribute (Part 1) is her college-level, 3-credit, learning frameworks course, Individual Learning Skills (EDP 310), offered through the Educational Psychology Department at the University of Texas at Austin since 1975.

EDP 310 is designed to help students learn how to learn. The course enrolls students of all levels, but especially those who enter the university under special circumstances or who experience academic difficulty. Course content is driven by Weinstein’s Model of Strategic Learning, inspired by systems theory and Gestalt psychology, which emphasizes that strategic learning emerges from the interactions among elements within four major components: skill, will, self-regulation, and the academic environment. Weinstein attributes many of her ideas about strategic learning to one of her mentors, Wilbert J. McKeachie, and his research at the University of Michigan on strategic teaching (Weinstein, 1994; Weinstein, Acee, Jung, Krause, Dacy, & Leach, 2012).

In 1999, the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board authorized formula funding of up to three credit hours for courses following a learning frameworks curriculum, which must include, “…1) research and theory in the psychology of learning, cognition, and motivation, 2) factors that impact learning, and 3) application of learning strategies” (Hill, 2000, para. 4). The policy change was a result of two learning framework course studies, one from the University of Texas at Austin (based on EDP 310—Individual Learning Skills) and the other from Texas State University (based on EDP 1350—Effective Learning), which presented statistically significant improved student retention and graduation rates for students successfully completing multiple sections of these learning frameworks courses as compared to other students not enrolled (Hill, 2000).

Learning frameworks courses provide instruction on learning strategy applications and inform students of theoretical frameworks that underpin each strategy drawing from educational neuroscience, metacognition, behaviorism, and constructivism—among many others. Most “study skills” courses teach students specific techniques and methods in isolation, such as content mapping, comprehension monitoring, and textbook annotation, focusing on acquisition of a skill but not comprehensive understanding of why and how learning can be enhanced by using that technique. Learning frameworks courses help students to assess their own learning strengths and weaknesses so that, once introduced to theories and strategies, students can understand the reasons for engaging in specific studying behaviors. Practicing learning strategies with their other course content is essential for the transfer of this knowledge (Hodges & Agee, 2009; Hodges, Sellers, & Dochen, 2012).

While learning frameworks courses are offered throughout U.S. postsecondary institutions, Texas has been at the forefront; approximately 90% of 2-year institutions and 75% of 4-year institutions offer multiple sections of these courses. Many of Texas’s 2-year institutions now require all first-year students to enroll in the course while 4-year institutions more typically offer the course to special populations such as conditionally-admitted students or students on academic probation. High schools are also now beginning to offer learning frameworks courses as dual-credit courses (Acee & Hodges, 2017).

Dr. Weinstein was a pioneer in postsecondary access and success; she knew that every student could learn, and she dedicated her life to that end. Learning frameworks courses are one of her many legacies. We honor her memory as we continue to expand the reach and effectiveness of these courses and help students to become more strategic and self-regulated lifelong learners.

Authors

Russ Hodges, Ed.D.

Dr. Russ Hodges is Associate Professor in the Graduate Program in Developmental Education in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction at Texas State University. He earned his Ed.D. in developmental education from Grambling State University and his M.Ed. from University of Louisiana in Monroe. Dr. Hodges’ research focuses on postsecondary student success, postsecondary student success courses, interventions for students diagnosed with AD/HD, and demographic changes in higher education. The learning framework model that he co-developed serves as a curriculum model for many postsecondary learning framework courses throughout Texas and the nation. Dr. Hodges has held state and national leadership positions including president of the College Reading and Learning Association (CRLA) and chair of the Council of Learning Assistance and Developmental Education Associations (CLADEA). He is an active scholar, having published three books, many journal articles, book chapters, and conference papers along with four research grants totaling just over 1 million dollars. He is also a frequent invited speaker for conferences for postsecondary faculty and staff development. Dr. Hodges has received many awards, including the Lifetime Achievement Award from the College Academic Support Programs conference, and outstanding service awards from both CRLA and the National Association for Developmental Education (NADE). In 2009, Dr. Hodges was named National Fellow for CLADEA—his field’s most prestigious honor.

Taylor Acee, Ph.D.

Dr. Taylor W. Acee is Associate Professor in the Graduate Program in Developmental Education in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction at Texas State University. He earned his Ph.D. and M.A. in educational psychology at The University of Texas and his B.S. in psychology at the University of Pittsburgh. His program of research is focused on cognitive, metacognitive, motivational, and affective factors that contribute to and detract from student success in postsecondary education. In his research, Dr. Acee targets variables that are causative, account for a meaningful amount of the variation in student success, and are amendable to change through educational intervention. He is internationally known for his collaborative work on personal relevance interventions, academic boredom, and strategic learning assessments and interventions. His research activities have resulted in over 30 refereed publications, 5 funded research grants totaling over $800,000, and various other scholarly activities.

Currently the Director of Developmental Math at the University of Texas at El Paso, she has worked for UTEP for 15 years and has been the director for Developmental Math for 10 years.

Denise received her Bachelor’s from West Texas A&M University in Math in 1988 and her Master’s in Educational Leadership in 2008 with a focus on Developmental Education. She has been very involved in TADE (Texas Association of Developmental Education) and was a board member from 2008 to 2014. She is a member of NADE, (National Association of Developmental Education), was the Co-Chair for the NADE 2014 national conference held in Dallas, and Served as the NADE Board Secretary from 2014 to 2016. She is currently a member of the Emeritus NADE Board. She is a member of Texas College Reading and Learning Association and was honored with the award for Developmental Educator of the year in 2016.

She has presented at local, state, and national conferences, including the National Math Summit held at NADE 2016 in Anaheim. She has presented at many different colleges and universities around the country on the use of ALEKS and developing summer bridge programs, Non-Course Based Options, and successful implementation of individualized programs. In 2014, The University of Texas at El Paso Developmental Math department won the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board’s Star Award for contribution to the state’s Closing the Gap Plan.

All students at the University of Texas at El Paso advised to take developmental mathematics receive course work that is based on the results of their initial skills assessment, and that is tailored to their individual learning needs and preferences. The Developmental Math Department uses the ALEKS® system, which applies adaptive assessment and principles of mastery learning, for assessment and teaching (McGraw Hill Companies, 2016). The system determines quickly and precisely what students know and what they need to learn. Then an individualized learning path with embedded mastery-level criterion is devised for the student. So students entering with developmental math needs are diagnostically assessed and given a unique starting point for skills development. Because of this individualized path for learning, the department has implemented procedures that help students proceed through their coursework. It is these procedures listed below that are critical to getting UTEP students through their individualized paths.

Clearly Defined Benchmarks and Attendance Policy

Benchmarks are given to the student at the beginning of the semester for both hour and topic goals on ALEKS. Students must meet one of these to remain on target. Benchmarks occur every week and are tracked closely by faculty. If a students miss a benchmark in both hour and topic for two weeks in a row, they are dropped from the class.

Attendance is required. Students are only allowed to miss two weeks’ worth of class before being dropped. We do, however, offer a “make-up” policy. If students miss class, they can attend at another agreed upon time.

Flexible Proctored Finals: A proctored final exam is scheduled for any student who reaches 90% of their topics.

Special Program Students: At the beginning of every semester, department faculty identify students who are a part of a unique program at UTEP, such as International Students, Athletes, Veterans, and others. We work with the program coordinators by keeping them abreast of the student’s progress.

Aleks Student Notebook, ASNB: The Developmental Math faculty created and published an Aleks Student Notebook. This notebook provides structure for note-taking and can be utilized by the student on the final exam.

Collaboration with Other Departments: The Developmental Math department has worked with the Provost’s, Registrar’s, Testing and Advising offices to implement programs that are outside of the norm in terms of part-of-term, grading, recruiting, registration, etc. By using the expertise of these departments, we are able to help students move forward in their course.

Mastery Based Instruction has benefited UTEP students in two important ways. First, by allowing students the time needed on content to master it and, second, because the individual nature allows the department to implement programs that help students move through their coursework. One example of this is the UTEP Extender Program. The Extender Program is a two-week program after the semester is over that allows students who meet strict requirements the ability to complete their coursework. The program has been in operation for five years and has helped over 850 students move on to their next math course. This could not have been done had it not been for the Mastery Based Instruction and individual paths.

Tamara Harper Shetron is a fourth year doctoral student in developmental education with a focus on literacy, learning supports, and postsecondary education for students with intellectual and developmental disabilities. She has a back ground in music and theatre, and brings an interdisciplinary approach to her teaching and research.

Kristie is in her fourth and final year of doctoral study at Texas State. Her teaching and research focus on integrated reading and writing, educational experiences of linguistically diverse students, and sociocultural aspects of teaching and learning. Kristie loves to travel and plans to see every continent someday.

This article describes the process and results of a research experiment using tableau theatre with an integrated reading and writing class in the Spring of 2016. Tableau is an instructional technique in which students physically recreate ‘frozen statues’ of a literary event from their reading. Our research goal was to find out if this contextualized learning experience would enhance motivation, engagement, and learning through the use of total body engagement (Asher, 1969), which stimulates brain activity, a prerequisite for learning (Hinton, Fischer, & Glennon, 2012; Rinne, Gregory, Yarmonlinskaya, & Hardiman, 2011; Toshalis & Nakkula, 2012), and currently one of the top needs in the Developmental Education (DE) classroom (Saxon, Martirosyan, Wentworth, & Boylan, 2015).

First, we introduced the tableau concept using a scene we thought students would be familiar with, a job interview. Next, having established the conceptual dynamics and reflective learning postures, the IRW students then transitioned to using tableau techniques with scenes from their reading, “The Lottery” by Shirley Jackson. We distributed copies of the story with the final paragraphs removed and taped under each student’s desk with the name of a different character from the story assigned to each. Students were instructed to finish reading the story from the perspective of that character. Next, using these randomly assigned characters, we created tableaus of the final dramatic stoning scene. We created additional replications of the scene rotating through character assignments obtained through a mock lottery similar to that in the story. Having grown accustomed to the task through the initial activity, students became highly engaged, and offered very little resistance to the activity.

The final portion of the experiment was to analyze student’s written responses to the activity. Overall, student responses demonstrated a deep understanding of the story and an ability to understand the multiple perspectives of characters. Two students responses in particular showed a depth of personal engagement with the text far above what we had expected. They were inventive, creative, and while remaining true to the original story, wove in themes of agency, democratic decision making and power redistribution, and even Christ/substitutionary death.

“Tessie Hutchinson was stoned to death, or so they thought,” “She laid there so life-less…she gained strength and limped away to safety..she has been working out to get stronger and faster,” “ Tessie planned to hurt everyone who was apart [sic] of her stoning,” “She was like a [sic] invincible woman.”

In a second student’s rendition, the town votes to end the lottery, but in an unexpected shift, votes to hold one last lottery, immortalizing Tessie as the final ‘winner.’ This highly descriptive emotional roller coaster ride is then given an unexpected twist when Tessie’s husband offers to die in her place. This student showed in-depth engagement with the story and its characters, and also added philosophical thoughts about the lottery “For every rock, no matter the shape or size that hits their loved one, a fraction of his or her soul leaves their body.”

This sample of our research demonstrates that, indeed, tableau theatre can be a very engaging and motivating instructional technique for an Integrated Reading and Writing class.

References

Asher, J. J. (1969). The Total Physical Response Approach to Second Language Learning*. The modern language journal, 53(1), 3-17.

Hinton, C., Fischer, K.W., & Glennon, C. (2012). Mind, brain, and education. Teaching and learning in the era of the common core: An introduction to the project and the nine research papers in the Students at the Center series. Retrieved from www.studentsatthecenter.org.

Toshalis, E. & Nakkula, M.J. (2012). Motivation, engagement, and student voice. Teaching and learning in the ear of the common core: An introduction to the project and the nine research papers in the Students at the Center series. Retrieved from www.studentsatthecenter.org

The Texas Developmental Education Professional Community Online (TX DEPCO) extends from the Texas Success Initiative Professional Development Program, funded by a grant from the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board and facilitated by The Education Institute at Texas State University.